This is a non-sequitur. He didn't donate because it was the popular thing to do, he donated because it was consistent with his religious beliefs.

Christianity has never been a popularity contest. It has steadfastness in the face of rejection and martyrdom in the face of oppression baked into its fundamental fabric, borne from its oppression as a minority religion in the first centuries of its existence.

Appealing to the majority is lame.

There's three options on every stance: support, oppose, and neutral. When in doubt, you should be neutral - not opposed.

Just because everyone else is opposing gay marriage, or integration, or emancipation, doesn't mean you should.

Maybe you don't have the time or energy to try to find out what path you should take. Okay, fair. You can always do nothing. You can literally say "I don't know enough about this to have an opinion".

But following the majority IS NOT that. You ARE taking a hard stance if you do that! You're making a choice, and that means you better understand that choice. You are responsible for it, accountable to it!

> Demanding permanent ostracization for supporting a majority position is fairly anti-democratic.

This was an utterly unreasonable description of being judged unqualified for 1 job.

> Where this analogy breaks is that at the time (2008), Eich's position had majority support in the US.

And where your analogy breaks down is that Eich had that same position at the time he was appointed CEO in 2014 and has that same position today.

> Demanding permanent ostracization for supporting a majority position is fairly anti-democratic.

It depends a lot on what that position is. Donating your personal wealth to discriminate against a marginalized group, which includes many of your employees is worth calling out.

Segregation was once a "majority position" in this country. Shaming segregationists was a really effective way to change that. For example, George Wallace, who eventually redeemed himself.

I think the correct formulation is: "There are political views that the CEO of Mozilla could hold which would be sufficient for me to abandon the use of products that Mozilla makes". And I think that would be non-controversial for most people.

> the Mozilla CEO shares your political views

I think treating every human with equal dignity goes beyond politics. While the specific context here was political, but that is only the context, not the principle.

> So you agree: for you, it's more important that the Mozilla CEO shares your political views, than that Mozilla makes a quality product.

He doesn't have to share all of them, but we have to have enough overlap for him to consider me & my friends enough of a human being to share the same rights that he does.

As another commenter pointed out, there are beliefs heinous enough that will override the quality of optional software that I might choose to use.

I am not particularly interested in what the majority of people thought at the time, especially not when the year you're citing is 2008, and not 1886.

And also in 2014 when he was appointed CEO and also today. Eich has the same position today.

I used anti-miscegenation as a stand-in, as an example of a ludicrous, indefensible position to hold today, while there are still holdouts who apparently think that gay marriage is some sort of affront to the moral fabric of society.